Wikipedia:Closure requests
 | This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared. |
Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).
Do not list discussions where the consensus is obvious.
In discussions where consensus is entirely clear to everyone involved, there is no need for a formal close: just go ahead and implement the decision! Discussions should only be posted here when an uninvolved closer is actually needed to resolve the matter.
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result. Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
Technical instructions for closers
|
|---|
|
Please append |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead, follow the advice at Wikipedia:Closing discussions § Challenging a closure.
Other areas tracking old discussions
[edit]- Wikipedia:Requested moves § Elapsed listings
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion § Old discussions
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion § Old business
- Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
[edit]Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Requests for comment
[edit](Initiated 119 days ago on 12 August 2025) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 205 § LLM/AI generated proposals? and its subsections? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 11:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- I agree this should be closed. FaviFake (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- I thanked @Newslinger for requesting this initially, but wanted to add my support and a request that the question of WP:LLMDISCLOSE being made policy which was suggested also be considered in the close if possible. My hope is that there was enough support for that to avoid the need for a further RFC. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 22:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 93 days ago on 7 September 2025) The RfC has run for three months and has received sufficient participation. Kindly close the discussion. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- Done. -- Beland (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#RFC: Amount of coverage in reliable primary news sources
[edit](Initiated 82 days ago on 18 September 2025) Coming up on 30 days and discussion has slowed, so listing now. This discussion obviously covers several CTOPs. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 64 days ago on 6 October 2025) -- Beland (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Done - Pinging requester as a courtesy - Beland — MWFwiki (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 49 days ago on 21 October 2025) Decision has mostly quieted down, very split opinions. May require a bartender's close. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 45 days ago on 25 October 2025) Discussion has died down; no new comments posted for 11 days. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 35 days ago on 4 November 2025) The RFC flag has been removed, and discussion has gone stale. Warning: this is a long one. Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'm working on a close for this one. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 23:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 35 days ago on 4 November 2025) RFC flag has been removed on this baseball-related discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 34 days ago on 5 November 2025) I think it's been up long enough for a close to be due. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
- Noting the discussion was initiated on 6 October while the RfC began on 5 November. CNC (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 27 days ago on 12 November 2025): No activity for 10 days. Will benefit from a proper close/consensus. OceanHok (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- I would suggest giving this one more time as I doubt many people know about it yet. Would be premature. Koriodan (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Deletion discussions
[edit]| V | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 80 | 2 | 82 |
| TfD | 0 | 2 | 28 | 1 | 31 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 9 | 1 | 10 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 31 | 5 | 36 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_November_13#Category:African-American_Catholic_colleges_and_universities
[edit](Initiated 48 days ago on 22 October 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 02:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Note to self: I'm involved. -- Beland (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Merge proposals
[edit](Initiated 63 days ago on 7 October 2025) No activity in a month. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 36 days ago on 3 November 2025) Bulk of the discussion occurred between 3-5 Nov with the last comment on 17 November 2025. Falls under contentious topics (see WP:CT/YA). Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning merge proposals above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Requested moves
[edit]Place new discussions concerning RMs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Other types of closing requests
[edit](Initiated 105 days ago on 26 August 2025) - Whether or not {{section link}} should be used in a "See also" section. -- Beland (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 21:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Paine Ellsworth Does this mean this entry can be removed? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oh no, perhaps as said below, the closer can move it out of the archive when they close it. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. FaviFake (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- I have unarchived this to note that I started an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#RFC: Piped links in "See also" sections. Perhaps that will resolve the issue more clearly. -- Beland (talk) 09:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. FaviFake (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)